General Relativity and Time

"Why" is not a scientific question and doesn't need to have an answer for science to do its thing. There is no paradox here, just your personal distaste for reality.

"How" is a much different question from why: we absolutely know how the HUP works and your description of how you think/wish it would work isn't it.

No, repeating the same wrong claim will not change reality. You cannot change reality by wishing it. That's not how the HUP works and not how reality works (two separate issues).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would be nice working with intelligent development people again, where new and improved ideas are exciting not scary and taboo.

The target idea solves the problem of Heisenberg Uncertainty, by making position a constant, in advance. All we need to do is measure the momentum, which is doable. We can also make the momentum constant, before hitting a fixed target. This can eliminate all uncertainty before we begin. In this case, we eliminate motion blur by fixing the speed of the action and the shutter speed before we shoot the picture. We choose a point in the frame.

This is not necessary to do in the lab, since it is common sense and not a mystery based on the tradition of scary uncertainty. We can do this with a photo.

Einstein once thought that his Gravitational constant was his biggest blunder. The constant turned out to be right, but for the wrong reason. The constant is connected to reference in reference, and not uncertainty. The in situ reference averages to a constant throughout the universe. The time potential defines mass, inertia and gravity.

Einstein's self doubt was running with the herd due to peer pressure. He did not believe God chose to play dice with the universe; there should be no uncertainty but rather order. Too many people benefitted by the large pool of fudge factor that uncertainty offered. He had to comply or be left out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What if your "idea" is simply wrong, based on your own misunderstanding?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact remains the traditions don't have an explanation for why quanta and why uncertainty? Why is mystery better?

The particle and wave duality of photons is another example of reference in reference, to show this is common to the universe. The wave-particle duality does not imply an equivalency of particles and waves, but an interconnection of two things, because waves can occupy the same space but particles cannot.

As a thought experiment, say we had a wave tank, with two wave generators, one at each end. These generate waves that are 180 degree out of phase. In the center of the tank the waves will cancel as the troughs of the waves from the left superimpose on the crests of waves from the right, and vice versa.

Although energy and work is constantly added, there is silence in the center of the tank due to the waves canceling. Energy is constantly being added but appears hidden. We can place a partition in the silence in the center of the tank, to make the energy reappear. The partition is analogous to the particle nature. This allows the hidden energy to reappear.

Theoretically, a purely wave universe, but with all waves canceling, would have hidden energy and would appear like a void, if there were no particles in the universe. The appearance of particles partitions the stillness, so energy appears out of the stillness; particle/waves duality appear as energy.

In terms of energy/photons, energy moves at the speed of light, which is the same in all references. Yet wavelength and frequency can change with reference. These are two distinct things. I would guess since the particle is the partition, and the partition allows energy to appear, the particle aspect is connected to inertial, while the wave aspect is at C. Changes in the height and width of the partition, due to GR and SR, allowing the energy to appear or disappear, to and from C, into and out of inertial space-time.

The red and blue shift take away or add energy content, respectively, due to the changing of particle partition via GR and SR.

 

I mentioned two target procedures for adding certainty to Heisenberg Uncertainty. One is to fix position of a target, in advance, and then measure the momentum when the target is hit. The second is to fix both the target and momentum in advanced. Both procedures involve time; future. We have changed the uncertainty in distance, with the target and essentially did a reverse motion blur; distance to time potential conversion. By anticipating the future we have removed the motion blur or uncertainty in distance.

This happens in nature. When an electron lowers energy in a specific situation, such as transitions in a hydrogen atom, very specific energy quanta are given off, that are repeatable under the same conditions. There is no uncertainty in terms of which energy quanta will appears in a given situation. Quanta contradict Uncertainty in that there is not random distribution of quanta, based on a given particle situation assumed to have uncertainty in momentum and distance.

The momentum is fixed in advanced to allow the energy quanta to be fixed. The uncertainty in distance; orbital space, is defined in terms of time potential; reverse motion blur into a fixed wavelength.

 

The laws of physics are the same in all references. For example, we can look at the electron transitions in the hydrogen atom and the same energy quanta will be released regardless of space-time reference. Other space-time references will see a blue or red shift, with respect to the controlled reference. This is how we see the universe expand.

This observation is consistent with reference in reference in that the hydrogen energy quanta is only dependent on the in situ reference and not the space-time reference. The space-time reference is zeroed out and therefore things reduce down to a single reference; in situ, so the motion blur and the uncertainty are no longer defined; same for all. There is no residual time potential to create uncertainty so the laws remain the same in all references.

 

Why are you still talking about motion blur?

 

Motion blur in photography was already around decades before Heisenberg Uncertainty, since they were taking photos of Abe Lincoln and the Civil War. Motion blur was well known. Since physics claims the uncertainty is not due to limitations of tech; they able to stop the motion, but they still gets blur or uncertainty, implies two references. I can stop the skater in my photo, but the squirrel climbing the tree in the background can still be blurred. One can't stop both at the same time; space-time and in situ references are distinct.

The fix is simple, but the ripple effect impacts the traditions.

My last post showed how quanta of energy are contradictory to uncertainty. For any hydrogen electron transition, even though there is assumed uncertainty in position or momentum, it always leads to the same quanta. We are talking about EM forces which are distance dependent and momentum impacting magnetic field strength, yet all possible randomness leads to the same quanta and not a different one each time.

 

Your last post did no more than this post, and all your other posts have done. SFA!, As usual just a mass of jumbled up words, and made up phrases, leading to meaningless and ridiculous concepts.
Word salad aptly describes most if not all your posts.

 

The traditions can't explain why very specific photon quanta, repeatably, come from a model of an electron orbiting an atom that is based on uncertainty in momentum and position. Below is the hydrogen emission spectra that distinguish this atom. These are distinct quanta that always appear, even though the electron is assumed to begin with uncertainty in position/momentum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The reason nobody will address this is, the traditions can't explain why uncertainty or why quanta. These are observed and carried along in a black box. This why I am staying simple. However, being simple has caused me to lose my original continuity for reference in reference.

I am hoping a traditionalist will attempt to explain how the traditions deal with this paradox. Nobody is daring to attempt this. Everyone seems to depend on subjective name calling, to tarnish prestige, so they can pretend this is below them so they can avoid it.

 

Where's the evidence for whatever crap you're proposing instead?

 

Again, I notice nobody is attempting to open the sacred black boxes and explain why uncertainty and why quanta. These are foundation premises that provide mystery fudge, as long as they are kept in their little black boxes. This is the real crap, since the majority POV should be held to higher standard than that.

Based on reference in reference considerations, I have explained several options for experimentally showing how to measure certainty for the dogma of uncertainty. The first was, since we can know the position or the momentum, but not both, we need two people in the same frame, one measuring position and the other measuring momentum, so a third person can see both, via picture in picture.

The next is to fix position in advanced, such as having a target. We know an exact position, but in the future. When the particle hits the target, we measure its momentum. This solution uses two references; one held constant in time; future.

The two references are space-time and the in situ reference of sub particles. The in situ sub particles move close to C and therefore have innate time dilation compared to space-time which exists outside the sub particle composites. Uncertainty is real, with one reference making it a mystery. Two reference explains it.

One analogy for uncertainty is motion blur in photography. There are two references being used for this special effect. One is connected to the speed of the shutter and the other is connected to the speed of the action. If these are not the same, and we stop time; snap shot of time, but conserve position/space (see the scenery and actor), the difference in speed (with time stopped) is conserved and shows up as uncertainty in position; blur. This is an example of time to distance conversion, due to time stopped. The blur in distance gives the impression of motion, but without time moving in the photo.

This is reversible; distance to time conversion, where the blur of uncertainty comes into focus to create potential in time. The target scenario gets rid of uncertainty in distance by setting the position in the future.

The blur or uncertainty is real and is a direct function of the difference in speed between two references. My solutions for measuring uncertainty is take advantage of there being two references. Uncertainty is a mystery with one reference, since this is not a realistic assumption.

 

Perhaps you live in a cocoon which explains your nearly every word salad nonsensical posts.
Let me awaken you. Science does not know everything, but it knows far more than what you imagine.
Understanding quantum mechanics totally is beyond us at present, that is well known...Still we describe what we observe to great accuracies. That is science.
We do not know why or how the BB banged....but we have overwhelming evidence that it happened, and from that instant we are able to describe the evolution of the Universe/spacetime in pretty good detail.
Science, particularly cosmology, is a discipline in perpetual progress.
It progresses on the back of knowledge gained from further and further observations, not on unsupported philosophical dribble, which most of your posts seem to dabble in.
I'm certainly not the first to notice this with you.